Topics

THE NEEDIEST. Also: City-Wide Task Force On Housing Court Still Alive

The United States has had a social welfare system for over 70 years, but each Christmas the New York Times continues to print heartbreaking stories intended to inspire contributions to its Neediest Cases Fund.

In 1912, when Times publisher Arthur Ochs established this tradition,
there were
no food stamps, no social security for the elderly and people with
disabilities,
no school breakfast or lunch programs, no Medicaid or Medicare, and no
Section 8
housing. Federal income taxes would not begin until the next year. New
York City
had a public-private system of poorhouses, outdoor relief, settlement
houses, tuberculosis
sanatoria, insane asylums, and orphanages, yet many of the poor lived in
conditions so pitiable, Ochs thought they would no longer be tolerated if
the
Times made them known.

The first Hundred Neediest Cases were peopled by widows, orphans, and sick
or
disabled fathers. Mothers were often invalids, too delicate or devitalized
to
hold jobs or do housework. Hunger, cold, and the death of family members
were
dreaded not only for their direct effects, but because they could bring on
tuberculosis.

More than a third of the cases arose from a father's death; today widows
and
children can receive Social Security survivors' benefits. Another quarter
of the
cases, in which the father was sick or disabled, might now be prevented by
disability payments and better medical care. Public assistance or child
support
payments could now support the 13 cases where the father was in jail, had
deserted, or was not mentioned. The few cases of impoverished old people
would
be resolved by Social Security. The remaining 17 cases involved children,
mostly
orphans, who had no adult to care for them. These would now be steered
toward
the still-controversial child welfare system.

By 1921, the annual collection for the Hundred Neediest Cases had become
an
institution. The Times pledged to make the nature of poverty "clearly
known and
to drive it home," because New Yorkers were "cut off by the conditions of
life
from channels of information as to the conditions of neighbors, channels
of
information which bring help and sympathy immediately." The Neediest cases
were
still dominated by sick, absent, and dead fathers. Mothers might work, but
they
earned too little to live on, or collapsed from overwork. A system had
evolved
to deal with such families by taking children away from their mothers. The
Hundred Neediest Cases Fund provided an alternative: enough money to keep
the
family together.

The New York Times was careful to distinguish its 1931 collection for the
Neediest Cases Fund from the "Emergency Unemployment Relief Fund,"
explaining
that the donations for the Neediest helped "those who cannot be helped by
employment because they are too old, too young, or too sick to work."
Another
difference was that the Emergency Unemployment Relief Fund had collected
$18
million, while the Neediest Cases Fund was unsure it would reach its 1930
total
of less than $348,000.

Pearl Harbor was bombed on the opening day of the 1941appeal. During the
next
week, enough money was donated to take care of the Hundred Neediest Cases,
so on
December 14, a collection was launched for a second 100 cases. The nation
had
been in the Depression for over a decade; no explanations were needed for
fathers being out of work. The Times promised its readers their donations
would
"mean the turning of the tide toward health and self-reliance."

Some cases were receiving "public aid," but had additional needs, while
others
were not eligible because a family member worked part-time or at a low
salary.
There was cash assistance for dependent children, the elderly, the blind,
and
those needing "home relief." There were WPA jobs that could be held for
up to
18 months, after which workers had to go back on public assistance, in a
cycle
some tried to break through training for higher-paid, permanent jobs.

Medical care now offered answers to many physical and mental problems, if
the
Neediest Cases Fund could pay for it. Donations began to buy "guidance"
and
"counseling," as well as rent and food. When a mother was dead, absent, or
too
weak to take care of her children, a housekeeper might be provided to
avoid
separating children from their families and homes.

The Hundred Neediest Cases of 1951 and 1961 show the success of the social
safety net then in place. Hunger and absence of income were no longer
prominent.
Stories gave detailed explanations of why their subjects were in need. The
new
cases required counseling to lead them to solutions that they would
otherwise
not know about or accept, such as living with a disability, or moving to a
nursing home. Parents and children who were "nervous" or "near breakdown"
needed care to return to mental health. Delinquency had become an issue,
as was
living in crime-ridden slums.

By 1971, the "Hundred" part of the fund's name was dropped, and cases no
longer
were given numbers. Counseling was still the prescription for many, and
drug use
emerged as a problem.

The landscape of need looked much like today's by 1991, with homelessness,
AIDS,
and substance abuse becoming familiar elements in cases. The 2001 campaign
for
the Neediest features lengthy stories about outstanding cases. Aaron
Donovan has
written these stories for three years, but is "still surprised at the wide
range
of things that cause people to be needy."

Some cases fall through the cracks between social service programs: he
recalls a
child living in a homeless shelter who needed cabfare to and from
chemotherapy
treatments. Other people need emergency support while applications for
public
benefits are being processed. "Charities have an advantage over
government,"
Donovan says. "They can get money to people right away."

According to David Jones, President and CEO of the Community Service
Society,
"government has abdicated substantially from case management." Instead of
doing
social work, employees at the city's public assistance agency are now
charged
with weeding out clients who fail to comply with convoluted application
and
recertification procedures.

The Community Service Society still gives cash grants to needy families,
as it
has done since 1912. However, Jones finds the agency has shifted its focus
to a
blend of the welfare poor and the working poor, as well as immigrants no
longer
eligible for Medicaid and public assistance. More time is spent, for
example, on
helping welfare recipients to regain benefits after inappropriate
sanctions.

Aaron Donovan's story of Jasmine Tolentino, published on November
25,
2001, illustrates both the value of existing social programs and their
limits.
One of her sons has lupus, a chronic illness for which he was recently
hospitalized. Tolentino lives with five children and a grandchild in a
two-room
apartment. Thanks to the social safety net, her son received the medical
care he
needed, and the family survives on public assistance, food from a local
church,
and food stamps. Because of the limits of public assistance, they cannot
afford
to move to a larger apartment, and were sleeping without sheets, blankets
or
pillows until the Children's Aid Society bought them with money from the
Neediest Cases fund.

In "Behind the Hundred Neediest Cases," published in the City Journal in
1997,
Heather MacDonald argued that their history illustrates a change in the
"elite"
view of charity. It was once reserved for the deserving poor; now the
recipient's moral character is "all but irrelevant."

However, the same history can be interpreted as the opening chapters of a
still-unfinished success story. In this reading, the early years of the
Neediest
Case Fund showed government the necessity of meeting basic material needs.
Then
the charity tackled those needs that remained unfilled. As our collective
knowledge evolves, private donations support the application of new
solutions to
both old and new problems. And where bureaucracy fails, there is no
substitute
for direct compassion.

CITY-WIDE TASK FORCE ON HOUSING COURT SURVIVES BUDGET CUTS

Last month I incorrectly reported (See "A Rocky Season,")
that the City-Wide Task Force on Housing Court was planning to
lay off
its entire staff and close down in December, due to state and city budget
reductions. According to Larry Wood, President of the Board of Directors, the 21-year-old coalition is still very much alive. "We are
determined
to stay together even if we were to lose all our government contracts," he says. State cuts of close to 45 percent of their income
forced
the task force to lay off eight of 18 staff members, with the remaining
employees
agreeing to take a pay cut. The agency's information tables at housing
courts are open fewer days each week, with only one paid employee
instead
of two. Volunteers and employees of other housing-related organizations
will
still help to staff the tables.

The task force's cash flow is threatened by city cutbacks stemming from the World
Trade
Center disaster. Fortunately, late in November, it received
approval
for a grant of $100,000 from the Nonprofit Finance Fund,
through
its Nonprofit Recovery Fund. While this amount does not return the
coalition to
the level of funding originally expected for the current year, it ensures
their
ability to provide uninterrupted services at a time when they are seeing
escalating demand for housing court assistance.

Linda Ostreicher, a former budget analyst for the New York City Council, is a freelance writer and consultant to nonprofits. She is currently on the staff of Bronx Independent Living Services.

The comments section is provided as a free service to our readers. Gotham Gazette's editors reserve the right to delete any comments. Some reasons why comments might get deleted: inappropriate or offensive content, off-topic remarks or spam.

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Gotham Gazette is published by Citizens Union Foundation and is made possible by support from the Robert Sterling Clark Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Altman Foundation,the Fund for the City of New York and donors to Citizens Union Foundation. Please consider supporting Citizens Union Foundation's public education programs. Critical early support to Gotham Gazette was provided by the Charles H. Revson Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.